Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[Wildswanderer]

Regarding when the universe was created: Perhaps someone could explain the strange tendency of the creationist crowd to downplay any controversy among creationists about how long ago this occurred.

I don't know of any creationists who deny that controversy exists.
It's not a doctrinal issue.

 

[Jose Fly]

Gotta love how conveniently selective creationists are when it comes to scientists.

When scientists disagree or there's a debate over something, we should all pay attention and listen to what they say.

But when they agree and resolve an issue, we can ignore them and wave it all away as "assumptions" and "conjecture".

Pretty hilarious.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I'm not sure why folks are surprised when scientific findings fundamentally change our ideas on what we thought we knew. Should we not be flexible in light of new evidence?... Science isn't scripture, it's a method. Our understandings change as we get closer to the truth, and nothing is spared this change. Not one thing.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nope, I entered the discussion because of two things: the first is to see why a person really believes that life came about by magic, I mean evolution. And the second is to see what the reasons are that a person cites upholding the theory. I actually have learned a lot.

The only claim to magic is those who promote literal Biblical Creationist version of the history of the universe, earth and life.

The Taung child is Australopithecus africanus, and as referenced; Australopithecus africanus is not part of the Homo Group as is homo sapien, us Therefore, Australopithecus africanus Taung Child's skull and brain would not necessarily be expected to have human-like expansion.

 

[YoursTrue]

The 2014 paper refuted a tentative hypothesis put forward by a group of researchers in 2012 that Taung child showed human like early skull bone development. In general there was never any established belief among the research community that Australopith child brain development was human like. The popular article goofed up...as usual.
New high-resolution computed tomography data of the Taung partial cranium and endocast and their bearing on metopism and hominin brain evolution
Abstract
Falk and colleagues [Falk D, Zollikofer CP, Morimoto N, Ponce de León MS (2012) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109(22):8467–8470] hypothesized that selective pressures favored late persistence of a metopic suture and open anterior fontanelle early in hominin evolution, and they put an emphasis on the Taung Child (Australopithecus africanus) as evidence for the antiquity of these adaptive features. They suggested three mutually nonexclusive pressures: an “obstetric dilemma,” high early postnatal brain growth rates, and neural reorganization in the frontal cortex. To test this hypothesis, we obtained the first high-resolution computed tomography (CT) data from the Taung hominin. These high-resolution image data and an examination of the hominin fossil record do not support the metopic and fontanelle features proposed by Falk and colleagues. Although a possible remnant of the metopic suture is observed in the nasion–glabella region of the Taung partial cranium (but not along the frontal crest), this character state is incongruent with the zipper model of metopic closure described by Falk and colleagues. Nor do chimpanzee and bonobo endocast data support the assertion that delayed metopic closure in Taung is necessary because of widening (reorganization) of the prefrontal or frontal cortex. These results call into question the adaptive value of delaying metopic closure, and particularly its antiquity in hominin evolution. Further data from hominoids and hominins are required to support the proposed adaptive arguments, particularly an obstetric dilemma placing constraints on neural and cranial development in Australopithecus.

So a new hypothesis was proposed in 2012. Evidence was gathered and the hypothesis was falsified in 2014. Classic science in action.

Your claim about a controversy is refuted.

It's been interesting, since here's what this says re: the brain situation: "...a newer endocast specimen title Stw 505 has been examined, and many believe that it supports Dart's hypothesis, but this aspect of Taung is still highly debated, and many still believe it has ape-like placement.[30]"
And I say, ok. hmm
I also found this description about bipedalism
"Walking on two legs distinguished the first hominids from other apes, but scientists still aren’t sure why our ancestors became bipedal."
(But it seems they're sure our ancestor(s) did evolve to become bipedal. But they can't figure why. As if there was a reason?

 

[YoursTrue]

The only claim to magic is those who promote literal Biblical Creationist version of the history of the universe, earth and life.

The Taung child is Australopithecus africanus, and as referenced; Australopithecus africanus is not part of the Homo Group as is homo sapien, us Therefore, Australopithecus africanus Taung Child's skull and brain would not necessarily be expected to have human-like expansion.

So it's not a link in what you believe to be the evolutionary process between ape-apes and humans (I know you probably think humans are apes, so that's why I said ape-ape meaning apes--in your terminology--that are not human, and homo sapien.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure why folks are surprised when scientific findings fundamentally change our ideas on what we thought we knew. Should we not be flexible in light of new evidence?... Science isn't scripture, it's a method. Our understandings change as we get closer to the truth, and nothing is spared this change. Not one thing.

Well, as I found out, scientists are just not sure why apes became bipedalists. (As in humans...)
Further, looking at this cute picture, I wonder -- what happened that the chimps and gorillas are still not figuring to make clothes for themselves?
How did humans evolve from apes? | New Scientist
I mean, he's (?) so cute!! Yet no clothes. At least one cannot say that clothes grew naturally on apes of any sort, developing biologically. At least I dont think someone can say that.

 

[Deeje]

I also found this description about bipedalism
"Walking on two legs distinguished the first hominids from other apes, but scientists still aren’t sure why our ancestors became bipedal."
(But it seems they're sure our ancestor(s) did evolve to become bipedal. But they can't figure why. As if there was a reason?

The only way they have to determine bi-pedalism is by examining the foramen magnum (image below) which in humans is placed differently to apes who walk on all four limbs. But the problem is, there was no foramen magnum ever examined because this specimen was apparently missing this vital part. So how did they determine that it was bi pedal without that?

Photograph for comparison...

Photographic evidence shows that the skull was not complete enough to show the position of the foramen magnum. I have searched for actual photographic evidence of the foramen magnum but have been unable to find any.....yet it is such an important part of the argument as to whether the Taung child was bi pedal. It also shows a comparison with the skull of a young chimp.

Seeing it actual size is helpful too I believe.

You can see how much of it is added to the original.

 

[shunyadragon]

So it's not a link in what you believe to be the evolutionary process between ape-apes and humans (I know you probably think humans are apes, so that's why I said ape-ape meaning apes--in your terminology--that are not human, and homo sapien.

In scientific terms humans are not apes unless you describe all Hominins as apes, which is not correct. No I do not describe humans as apes, which is misleading and incorrect, I describe humans as homo sapiens sapiens a species of the Homo Group, The Taung child is Australopithecus africanus, and as referenced; Australopithecus africanus are a species of the Australopithecus Group.

You did not respond to my posts.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Well, as I found out, scientists are just not sure why apes became bipedalists. (As in humans...)
Further, looking at this cute picture, I wonder -- what happened that the chimps and gorillas are still not figuring to make clothes for themselves?
How did humans evolve from apes? | New Scientist
I mean, he's (?) so cute!! Yet no clothes. At least one cannot say that clothes grew naturally on apes of any sort, developing biologically. At least I dont think someone can say that.

Hmmm... I can't say I know why humans evolved to be bipedal. I haven't studied human evolution too much yet, honestly, so I'm not quite sure why. What I will say, is that there are some pretty distinct advantages for us as bipedal runners. Sure, we are slower, but the style of running we have (assuming we stay in shape) conserves a lot of energy, and we can run for crazy long distances compared to other creatures.

Persistence hunting - Wikipedia

Not only that, but since we couldn't outrun our prey, we had to be able to track game by reading blood and tracks if we wanted to chase them down. We also needed to be able to read tracks to know that prey was even in the area, or what their migrational patterns were. As someone who hunts, this is something I've had to do myself. You can imagine that in relying on being able to discern signs in order to stay alive, finding patterns in day to day life would come about naturally.

Seems to me like the more (and better) a creature's ability was to discern patterns through reading signs such as tracks, the more creative their thought processes would develope. This could make for a better ability to problem solve.

We could see that animals use fur to stay warm. We could also harvest and wear fur ourselves to stay warmer when it gets too cold. This would help in making it possible to leave Africa for colder climates - especially up north. This is me just spit balling, but it makes sense to me.

Keep in mind, modern people only seem to consistently wear more clothing when it's either a cultural pressure, or when the weather is colder. Where I live, the Coastal Salish people used to walk around buck naked before contact with the west because the temperature is very temperate here. When the weather got worse than that, they wore woven cloaks or bark woven clothing to shed rain and stay warmer. If they were wealthy, they wore clothing all the time to show off their status. Fur and leather was especially a high status thing to own. Everyone always wants to be fashionable and stand out.

Still, there are some places that are sunny all the time, and clothing is a non factor for people in those climates, such as with the Sentinelese people. They wear belts and jewelry for adornment, but that's it... They aren't covering anything else at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's been interesting, since here's what this says re: the brain situation: "...a newer endocast specimen title Stw 505 has been examined, and many believe that it supports Dart's hypothesis, but this aspect of Taung is still highly debated, and many still believe it has ape-like placement.[30]"
And I say, ok. hmm
I also found this description about bipedalism
"Walking on two legs distinguished the first hominids from other apes, but scientists still aren’t sure why our ancestors became bipedal."
(But it seems they're sure our ancestor(s) did evolve to become bipedal. But they can't figure why. As if there was a reason?

False, the The Taung child is Australopithecus africanus has been classified without question as an individual of the species of the Australopithecus Group. The article you cited did not question that specific classification.

 

[nPeace]

Look I want certainty,
I want knowledge now that in 1000 years time will still be the same.
I do not want to waste my time on trying to keep educating myself with all these new ideas that may change next year.
That is why when I want knowledge I go to a two thousand year old book written by anonymous authors who knew very little about physics, biology or any of that "changeable" stuff.
The bible as knowledgeable now as its always been

People do claim that they want certainty, but often the reality is not in line with the claim.
For one thing, they do not want to investigate (Psalm 10:4) beyond their comfort zone, and hence the other thing is, they are misguided, or misinformed.

Take your statement here, for starters, "That is why when I want knowledge I go to a two thousand year old book written by anonymous authors who knew very little about physics".
How accurate is that statement? Not very, when one considers the facts - investigates. What knowledge, for example? There knowledge, and there is knowledge.

Nebuchadnezzar, Sennacherib, etc., are not considered anonymous, although we never met them, nor know if they even knew how to write, but we found 'document' saying, "I so-so-so, did so-so-so."
People accept that - no question.
We find documents, where the Bible writer says, "I, so-so-so, did so-so-so." ... and they are anonymous.
I wonder why... although I never get an answer to this, even though I asked.

The other thing is, before modern science, and many recent discoveries, the Bible gave details on physics and biology, history..., that was unknown by every culture, until now.
How did the writers know?
It was not because they were way smarter... well depending on how one looks at it. Yes, they studied things. No, they did not have some secret technology.

An investigation would reveal how they knew.
The Bible does not credit man as it's author. Men wrote it, but they didn't author it.
To illustrate, a secretary may write a letter to a business man, but the contents of the letter did not originate with them. They merely wrote what was dictated to them.
Likewise, "men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit." (2 Peter 1:21)

Hence why there are things written there that men say, "We don't know the answer to that." Yet, the answers are in the Bible. The explanations are there.
For example, these are just some of the questions the Bible answers...

Spoiler

Why was the Universe born perfectly spatially flat, with its total matter-and-energy density perfectly balancing the initial expansion rate?
Why is the Universe the exact same temperature, to 99.997% accuracy, in all directions, even though the Universe hasn't existed for enough time for different regions to thermalize and reach an equilibrium state?
Why, if the Universe reached these ultra-high energies early on, are there no high-energy relics (like magnetic monopoles) predicted by generic extensions to the Standard Model of particle physics?
Why, since the entropy of a system always increases, was the Universe born in such a low-entropy configuration relative to its configuration today?

However, they are just a fraction of the questions men ask, and can't seem to find the answers.
The Bible gives satisfying answers to such questions.
The thing is, it's not newly writen. It's centuries old.
Men believe they have the answers to origins. They have beliefs.
In fact, we all do.
Which beliefs are true, and accurate, is the question.
I've never found the Bible to be wrong, and it does what no man can do. Its prophecies are reliable.

Do you really want certainty?

 

[nPeace]

It's been interesting, since here's what this says re: the brain situation: "...a newer endocast specimen title Stw 505 has been examined, and many believe that it supports Dart's hypothesis, but this aspect of Taung is still highly debated, and many still believe it has ape-like placement.[30]"
And I say, ok. hmm
I also found this description about bipedalism
"Walking on two legs distinguished the first hominids from other apes, but scientists still aren’t sure why our ancestors became bipedal."
(But it seems they're sure our ancestor(s) did evolve to become bipedal. But they can't figure why. As if there was a reason?

Hmm is right. Deciding on a transitional is far from objective, isn't it. Hard to tell the difference between that and philosophy, or religion.

 

[nPeace]

Well, as I found out, scientists are just not sure why apes became bipedalists. (As in humans...)
Further, looking at this cute picture, I wonder -- what happened that the chimps and gorillas are still not figuring to make clothes for themselves?
How did humans evolve from apes? | New Scientist
I mean, he's (?) so cute!! Yet no clothes. At least one cannot say that clothes grew naturally on apes of any sort, developing biologically. At least I dont think someone can say that.

I wonder why we grow pubic hair, and are not born with it.

 

[nPeace]

The only way they have to determine bi-pedalism is by examining the foramen magnum (image below) which in humans is placed differently to apes who walk on all four limbs. But the problem is, there was no foramen magnum ever examined because this specimen was apparently missing this vital part. So how did they determine that it was bi pedal without that?

Photograph for comparison...

Photographic evidence shows that the skull was not complete enough to show the position of the foramen magnum. I have searched for actual photographic evidence of the foramen magnum but have been unable to find any.....yet it is such an important part of the argument as to whether the Taung child was bi pedal. It also shows a comparison with the skull of a young chimp.

Seeing it actual size is helpful too I believe.

You can see how much of it is added to the original.

Interesting teeth on that 3 year old... fellow.

 

[YoursTrue]

NO, you are unethically selectively interpreting the article from a dishonest Creationist perspective.
The controversies in the science of evolution involve academic disagreements in the constant advancements in evolutionary sciences, and NOT questioning the foundation of evolution itself, or the basic evolutionary tree referenced, and the place of the australopithincus Group. of species.
Nowhere in this article was the foundation of human evolution remotely questioned.

I never said it was.

 

[YoursTrue]

In scientific terms humans are not apea unless you describe all Hominins as apes, which is not correct. No I do not describe humans as apes, which is misleading and incorrect, I describe humans as homo sapiens sapiens a species of the Homo Group, The Taung child is Australopithecus africanus, and as referenced; Australopithecus africanus are a species of the Australopithecus Group.

You did not respond to my posts.

Yes, I did as much as possible.
So the following is not true? (From The Australian Museum) --
"Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.
Humans are primates, but the primates that we most closely resemble are the apes. We are therefore classified along with all other apes in a primate sub-group known as the hominoids (Superfamily Hominoidea)
This ape group can be further subdivided into the Great Apes and Lesser Apes."
Humans are apes – ‘Great Apes’ - The Australian Museum

 

[ecco]

I don't know of any creationists who deny that controversy exists.

Which is why I used the term "downplay".

It's not a doctrinal issue.

I would disagree. So would KL Marshall...

Revisiting the Scopes Trial: Young-Earth Creationism ... - MDPI

I will argue that what creation science actually does is enact a false pillar on which biblical authority should rest, because according to creation science’s own claim, if YEC and its scientific arm are incorrect, then the entire Bible cannot be trusted.
​

That sure sounds like a comment on doctrine.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Which is why I used the term "downplay".


I would disagree. So would KL Marshall...

Revisiting the Scopes Trial: Young-Earth Creationism ... - MDPI

I will argue that what creation science actually does is enact a false pillar on which biblical authority should rest, because according to creation science’s own claim, if YEC and its scientific arm are incorrect, then the entire Bible cannot be trusted.
​

That sure sounds like a comment on doctrine.

Sounds like a commitment to tall tales too. YEC has a scientific arm? Closest thing they have equates to an entirely different body part.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope, I entered the discussion because of two things: the first is to see why a person really believes that life came about by magic, I mean evolution. And the second is to see what the reasons are that a person cites upholding the theory. I actually have learned a lot.

Life did not come about by evolution. Evolution is not a theory explaining the origin of life.

I do not understand why creationists need to be told this so often.

Perhaps you have learned something. I do not know. But that confusion over the origin of life and the evolution of life seems beyond the skill of creationists to understand.